quote:
I asked for a long range chart and you certainly provided one. But this is a little too long range


Some people are never happy. Wink

If you are so worried about CO2, plant lots of broad leaf trees!
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you don't believe me and I don't believe you so we are when we started and no I have not buried my head in the sand.


But that is the point. Your "belief" does not change reality. Global Warming is not a religions debate where your "beliefs" are, in fact, reality. This is real stuff. You are burying your head in the sand.

Tell me, do you think the chart I just posted is a complete fabrication by the "scientific establishment"? What specific facts do you base your answer upon?
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
If you are so worried about CO2, plant lots of broad leaf trees!


Me worry about GW? I think not. I may as well worry about the weather.

What I worry about is the propensity for people to deny the evidence despite the overwhelming evidence. You LMM (unlike Nash), are scientifically literate. Yet, still, you seem to insist that your chart that details the entire history of life on earth is relevant to the discussion of rising temperatures in the industrial age.

It is a perplexing, endlessly fascinating phenomenon.
Skep,
If there had not been a global cooling scare in the 70's with all that same technology, I might agree. However, like most things that become political, its 90% BS and 10% fact. You may pick which side of the BS you like.

I see no major consensus to either side. If we could find at least 80% of the scientists agreeing, I could go for it. That ain't happening BUD!

BTW, I have planted several trees on my property. Always makes the air smell better......
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I guess I'll have to say it until I'm blue in the face that I do NOT agree with any draconiam measures to reduce CO2 emmissions or give up our lifestyle.

Completely agree.

quote:
That said, I will step into the political realm and state emphatically that I believe we should all do everything we can to wean ourselves from the teat of Middle Eastern oil.

Completely agree.

I love finding similarities rather than differences. It gives us a much cleaner starting point.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you don't believe me and I don't believe you so we are when we started and no I have not buried my head in the sand.


But that is the point. Your "belief" does not change reality. Global Warming is not a religions debate where your "beliefs" are, in fact, reality. This is real stuff. You are burying your head in the sand.

Tell me, do you think the chart I just posted is a complete fabrication by the "scientific establishment"? What specific facts do you base your answer upon?


I'm disagreeing with your data, many do in case you haven't noticed. The EPA had a 30 yr employees paper removed because it disagreed with their agenda.

CO2 comes from many things as already mentioned, maybe the real problem is too many humans?
There are eco-watermelons (green on the outside; red on the inside!) who believe the world's population should be reduced by 85% to protect the planet. Don't go giving anyone any crazy ideas.
Back atcha.

quote:
The reality is that folks are catching onto the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax, an inconvenient truth attested to by more and more scientists. Like any good con man, Obama wants to hurry the shakedown before his mark figures out his game. Democrats actually said that “If we do not act now, the climate will soon be out of our control.” This, of course, raises the question: just when was the climate ever under our control? Leave it to Obama to think he can control the weather.

While Cap and Trade is clearly being pushed by Nanny Pelosi and Obama, he has not really talked much on the subject for fear it might fail. In fairness, Obama seems increasingly uncomfortable talking about anything but himself.

After passage by the House of Representatives, the bill goes to the Senate where a compromise might be struck. Instead of making companies pay the government for the privilege of conducting their business, perhaps Congress will take a page from the extortion/protection racket practiced by the Mafia for years and will just let the businesses write their checks directly to the Democratic National Committee.

Obviously, the big winner here is any business not located in the United States. Obama’s policies of empowering unions, making it easy for plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue, increasing regulation, and raising taxes will chase more companies out of the United States to business-friendly countries overseas. It is no accident that more of the big IPOs of companies are now taking place on foreign exchanges.

The myth of man-made global warming was started by the left, fanned by Democratic outcast Al Gore with his “The Sky Is Falling/Chicken-Little” slide show, and perpetuated by attacking anyone who dared to question his dubious science. That is pretty much the MO of the left: begin with a self-righteous premise, repeat it often enough, say things like “The science is conclusive on this,” and then personally attack anyone who disagrees. If Gore cares that much about the earth’s temperature, he could just walk around providing shade for cities.

We have been lulled to sleep by the media’s frivolous entertainment. Our newspapers are slowly dying because they have become cheerleaders and not independent purveyors of the truth, allowing our politicians to get away with egregious conduct and the waste of our national resources.

Obama said that “Global warming is happening much quicker than we thought.” Then one of his handlers reminded him that it is now summer.

Undaunted by the dismal success rate of past scientists’ predictions (Y2K doomsday threats, the hole in the ozone layer scare, the dangers of nuclear power), the Democrats lumber forward. In fact, what was the last dire prediction of leftist scientists that actually came true? If you think of any, let me know.
LOL.

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling. In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.


quote:
Obama said that “Global warming is happening much quicker than we thought.” Then one of his handlers reminded him that it is now summer.



Hahahahahahaha.
I love it.
One school of thought amongst climatologists believes the arctic ice pack must melt to provide the moisture for ice age glaciers. Another, does not. Yet, we're supposed to trust our future to such.

The waxing and waning of plasma flow is the most significant thing to affect climate change on all the planets.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Link appears to be broken.


sorry, try this. Link

it's a story by one of the scam conspiritor, NASA, concerning dramatic ice thinning in the artic due to the non-existance of global warming.
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
I'm not 100% sure about global warming, tho it seems to me that there is much more data to support it than refute it.




Proof of Global Warming?
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Back atcha.

[QUOTE]The reality is that folks are catching onto the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax, an inconvenient truth attested to by more and more scientists.


I think that perhaps I have stumbled onto one of the misunderstandings that y'all might have about this "GW conspiracy."

You guys keep posting contradictory data concerning "man-made global warming." I ask you to laser-in to the "mad made" aspect.

To rehash, my stance is as follows. The consensus is that global warming is real and is probably man-made. That was my stated stance at the beginning of this thread and it remains until the scientific consensus changes (Nash, "scientific consensus" means the consensus from people like NOAH and the National Academy of Science and NOT organizations you listed that have formed for the sole purpose of denying GW).

There is abundant evidence of global warming. I have posted the evidence here for all to see, After repeated requests, not one of you have supplied a chart that contradicts the rising temperatures we have seen since the start of the Industrial Age. Yes, many of you have cited interviews with this guy or that or linked to a blog that claims its all a scam designed to destroy our way of life but, no, none of you have supplied scientific data that contradicts the FACT of a recent trend towards warming.

But I find that perhaps our disagreement isn't as profound as it appears at first glance. I think you all may be denying the "man made" part of the GW debate. I readily admit that there seems to be a raging debate within the scientific community over whether or not it is man made. The general consensus is that it "probably" is but I've seen no statements that state the premise as factual. The most I've seen says "the data seems to suggest" or "we think it likely that the correlation between rising temps and the advent of the industrial age is causal."

All that to say this: The evidence for Industrial Age warming is, in fact, overwhelming. Deny it if you wish but do yourself a favor and try to find unbiased, factual, scientific data that supports your assertion so you won't sound like a loony conspiracy theorist at your next ****tail party.

But the "man made" aspect is fully debatable.

(Attachment: Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley

Attachments

Images (1)
Now, I'll go along with you. There is probably an increase in the global mean temperature of around a degree celsius. I say "probably" because, first, accurate data from the "medieval warm period" simply does not exist; second, the instrumentation used today is much more accurate and widespread than even that used in the 1920s; and third, even the chart you provided shows global temperature cycles (sort of). One cycle does not a pattern make, but it is compelling.

My gentle reminder to you is that funding for things scientific is ALWAYS political. As there is political pressure towards man-made global warming, public research funding will ALWAYS go in that direction. I speak from direct, personal experience; not GW, but in another realm altogether. Hence the need for organizations formed to "deny" MMGW.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
My gentle reminder to you is that funding for things scientific is ALWAYS political.


I wish that were not the case but I guess I can't deny that. I happen to put some trust in the self-correcting nature of science. A scientists could become rich and famouns by proving the consensus wrong.

For instance, the consensus is that CO2 levels have a profound effect on temperature. TYhat was the case until just two days ago when a study was published that strongly suggests that CO2 levels have only "about half" the effect that was originally considered.

Headline: Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong Link

Summation: "Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM (a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago. "

Scientists are going goo-goo over this study because it may sway the consensus a little. Good stuff.
Sorry, but stating a consensus exists, does not make it so. Many scientists state they believe CO2 is a factor and many do not. I've shown the skeptics.

Consensus is not part of the scientific principle, only part of the political principle.

The planet has undergone numerous warming and cooling periods without man made interference. Portions of the planet were warm and are now frigid.

The present polar regions were once warm, but now frigid because the planet shifted on its axis. The planet inhabits a range in the solar system given to much warmer temperatures, which it once experienced. However, when the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia creating the Himalayas, the result was a heat sink that siphons much of the heat into the upper atmosphere creating the temperate regions.

Plasma flow on the sun has a much greater effect as it increases or decreases the solar winds and their interaction with cosmic rays.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Consensus is not part of the scientific principle, only part of the political principle..


I agree to a certain extant. But consensus is about the only thing we laymen have in a issue as complicated as this one. Scientific consensus must be based on scientific organizations. I pay attentyion to the NOAAH and National Academies of Science among many others. What about you?

Political consensus must be . . . On second thought, perhaps "political consensus" is an oxymoron or a contradictory phrase so skip that.

So, Interventor and LMM, exactly what is the "consensus" and what do you base that observation on?

Can either of you give me one single nationally recognized, science-biased scientific organization that agrees with your stance?
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
However, when the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia creating the Himalayas, the result was a heat sink that siphons much of the heat into the upper atmosphere creating the temperate regions.


And also erased the Sargassian Sea and turned northern Africa from a lush jungle to a Saharan dessert. (which ultimately ended up spawning a new species of ape called homo sapiens sapiens but that is another story)

Yes, the earth is constantly going from warm to cold to warm to cold again. Yes, the sun matters. Yes, the earth's movement through the spiral arms of the galaxy every 100,000 years or so matter. Volcanoes matter. But so does CO2 and a thousand others things.

Let's try this, LMM and Int: I think you would both agree that the only thing absolutely certain about our climate is that the earth is either

A.) Warming
B.) Cooling
C.) Remaining the same

"C" is out. The earth's temperature is never static. I think we can both agree on that. So that leaves either warming or cooling. Which is it? What is your evidence?
And good old Dr. Hansen is very tolerant of dissent:

quote:
The "contrarian" Hansen referred to, Dr. John Christy, is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama and a panelist on the National Academy of Science's report on temperature reconstructions. His testimony covered research he has conducted on the effect that land use and urbanization have on temperature change, and the observed "shortcomings" of climate models to reflect these effects.

This un-classy display of intolerance was topped last September when Dr. Hansen reported to the Denver Post that "Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead."


...referring to GW "deniers". Also referred to as follows:

quote:
Those who question if that's a fact are no longer simply nay-sayers or skeptics. They are flat-earthers, "known liars," and war criminals.


This approach to honest scientific inquiry is quite fascist.

Link
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Skep, I gave up showing you sites 8 pages back.

Here's one you can look at or not.

Link


Lmm,

This is not a "scientific organization." Globalwarminghysteria.com is a site dedicated to debunking the hysteria. I happen to AGREE that there is a fair amount of hysteria. I've said that a half dozen times already.

But you site proves my point. The very first chart is nearly identical to the charts I posted and clearly shows the earth is warming.

The site blames the GLOBAL WARMING on sun activity, not CO2 as proclaimed by the hysterians. The rest of the site appears to be links to a bunch of other hysterians and I'm just not going to thumb through all of it.

So, LMM, are you saying that you now agree with me that the earth is getting warmer?

If you want unbiased scientific data, try sciencedaily.com or scientificamerican.com. These are legitimate site dedicated to science, not politics.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
NIPCC

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Link


LMM,

This is not a scientifi organization. It is yet another organization formed for the sole purpose of debinking MMGW.

A very good site for researching these kinds of organization is Sourcewatch. They ahve this to say about the NIPCC:

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was a conference held at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in New York between March 2-4 . The conference was organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tanks that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming.

Even so, they mostly AGREE with me by saying, "The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change."

Let me highlight that for you: They AGREE that the globe is getting warmer. That is the ONLY position I have taken throughout this whole thread and, as I've stated, the evidence seems to be consensual that the globe is getting warmer.

So do you now dispute their findings?
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
And good old Dr. Hansen is very tolerant of dissent:

quote:
The "contrarian" Hansen referred to, Dr. John Christy, is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama and a panelist on the National Academy of Science's report on temperature reconstructions. His testimony covered research he has conducted on the effect that land use and urbanization have on temperature change, and the observed "shortcomings" of climate models to reflect these effects.

This un-classy display of intolerance was topped last September when Dr. Hansen reported to the Denver Post that "Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead."


...referring to GW "deniers". Also referred to as follows:

quote:
Those who question if that's a fact are no longer simply nay-sayers or skeptics. They are flat-earthers, "known liars," and war criminals.


This approach to honest scientific inquiry is quite fascist.

Link


Zippy,

From your article, Climate change is an immensely complex issue. While there is agreement among scientists that warming is occurring and human activity may be partly responsible, how much warming and how much of it is from anthropogenic causes is widely disputed.

I agree with nearly the entire premise of the article but especially with the above statement which is nearly identical to what I ahve been stating here all along.

This is an immensely complex issue. One that no one here is qualified to wrap their heads around. It is wrought with very hotly debated issues at nearly every jhuncture. Until the science is settled, that is how science works and why I cherish it so.

But the sheer complexity is why I believe that the only rational thing we laymen can do is stick to the consensus. The consensus is that GW is real is is probably man made.

This very forum is a microcosm of the debate. There are those here who absolutely will not accept the fact that the globe is warming. They are the "flat earth" people your excellent article referred to. Nash, LMM and Interventor and a couple of others appear to be unwilling to rationally examine the evidence. Despite repeated request to bolster their arguments with facts, they only offer opinion (or, in LMM's case, cite data that agrees with me).
Skep,
I give. If I showed you a site that said the earth was green (with pictures), you would say its a distortion of their machinery.

The earth and ALL OTHER PLANETS go through temperature changes. Up and down, for centuries at a time. CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of warmer temperatures. The sun affects our global weather.
Man made pollutants affect the climate about 1% to 3%.

You buy a bikini, I'm going for a parka for the coming ICE AGE!
Link


Petition Project

Home
Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.



Letter from Frederick Seitz
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

Click here to see the rest of this letter from the past president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

See Dr. Noah Robinson's Video Presentation: Link

Download Dr. Art Robinson's Power Point Presentation: Link
One of the advantages of being older, is I can say I've seen it all before. There is a pathology of the left that the sky is always falling. Therefore, we must cede power to those who can save us all from the terrible bandersnatch.

In the sixties, it was global nuclear war and then nuclear winter. If we did not cede power to the peace movement and surrender to the worse murder machines in history, then history would come to an end.

In the seventies and eighties doomsdays included an ice age and the population bomb. Well, so far no advancing glaciers and the US hasn't collapsed, as predicted, with a population of 280 million, plus.

I suspect we are moving into a cooling period. Of what duration, I do not know. I'm not planning on hunting polar bears in Tennessee. However, I shall keep my old winchester .458 magnum around in hopes of bagging an alaskan brown bear in Kentucky.
Last edited by interventor1
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
The earth and ALL OTHER PLANETS go through temperature changes. Up and down, for centuries at a time. CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of warmer temperatures. The sun affects our global weather.
Man made pollutants affect the climate about 1% to 3%.


So answer my question, please: Is the earth currently trending cooler or warmer?

(And the science isn't settled on whether CO2 levels precede or trails warming. What IS settled is that there is a correlation.)
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
I suspect we are moving into a cooling period.


Cite your evidence for this, please?
Simple! Global warming ceased 11 years ago, a cooling trend developed over the last two years, and the plasma flow on the sun's surface has changed over the last year resulting in significantly decreased solar winds.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Simple! Global warming ceased 11 years ago, a cooling trend developed over the last two years, and the plasma flow on the sun's surface has changed over the last year resulting in significantly decreased solar winds.


Sounds really smart and educated but I asked for your evidence, not for an educated opinion. Yes, I understand some scientists say this, that and the other. My point, again and again, is that the consensus from elading scientific organizations have concluded differently. Unless you are eminently qualified to weight the full body of evidence from all side of this issue, the only ration thing to do is side with the consensus.

The World Meteorological Organization (an international organization formed in 1950 as a clearing house for international weather concerns - not some wacky organization invented by kooks yesterday and funded by Exxon as LMM seems to be find of) has this to say about your theory: (http://www.aussmc.org/Is_the_Earth_Cooling.php)

"There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious."

So how are you qualified to completely dismiss this refutation by an international organization , Int? Me? I admit that I don't know much so I am forced to side with the consensus.
You neglected to point out that the WMO is entity of the UN. Thru the IPCC, the UN has definite reasons for using global warming to their advantage. Not to mention, the UN is one of the most corrupt instrumentalities I know of, save perhaps Congress. That's speaking from first and second had experience.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
You neglected to point out that the WMO is entity of the UN. Thru the IPCC, the UN has definite reasons for using global warming to their advantage.


Excellent refutation. I guess I can't deny that (you see this, Nash? This is a gentlemanly debate).

However, I still don't see you citing any evidence that is contrary to the scientific data that clearly shows a cooling as opposed to a warming trend.

It seems that the best you and LMM can do is deny what I present.

Since neither you nor I are qualified to weigh all the data, what non-biased, internationally (or nationally) recognized entity would you recommend as a representative of reason in this debate?
Last edited by Cookey

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×